Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:44172 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 77909 invoked from network); 5 Jun 2009 06:58:29 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 5 Jun 2009 06:58:29 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=stas@zend.com; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=stas@zend.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain zend.com designates 63.205.162.116 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: stas@zend.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 63.205.162.116 us-gw1.zend.com Windows 2000 SP4, XP SP1 Received: from [63.205.162.116] ([63.205.162.116:25354] helo=us-gw1.zend.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 16/50-09243-312C82A4 for ; Fri, 05 Jun 2009 02:58:28 -0400 Received: from [192.168.27.24] ([192.168.27.24]) by us-gw1.zend.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Thu, 4 Jun 2009 23:58:43 -0700 Message-ID: <4A28C20F.4010104@zend.com> Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2009 23:58:23 -0700 Organization: Zend Technologies User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (Windows/20090302) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Rasmus Lerdorf CC: internals@lists.php.net References: <94.6F.05315.44EF11A4@pb1.pair.com> <77E6891A-AF77-47B5-94DB-FA69D4F7F198@roshambo.org> <4A28B16A.2040101@lerdorf.com> In-Reply-To: <4A28B16A.2040101@lerdorf.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 05 Jun 2009 06:58:43.0757 (UTC) FILETIME=[109B95D0:01C9E5AB] Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Is there a technical reason Right, I think that is actually the conclusion we came to at one point. > I don't remember the discussion that caused the RFC to be declined. I > would be in favour of reversing that decision wherever it came from. Amen to that! > And that just isn't going to happen. The only valid argument against > short_tags itself is that it clashes with named PI tags and have that same problem. So, could we have